HEARING ON The Environmental and Economic Impacts of Ocean Acidification before the Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard of the Committee
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation United States Senate April 22, 2010

Mister Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me. Thirty
years ago, I worked for this Committee handling oceans and fisheries issues.
I sat behind you then and behind me later, supporting agency management. This
is my first time at this table.

Hearing the panelists before me, I will be swimming against the flow. What
I will present will raise questions. I assure you I have received no money
from any sources for my climate change work.

My approach to impact analysis is a product of my education and work at NOAA
and for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I led IPCC work on five
impact analyses: Fisheries, Polar Regions, Oceans, and Oceans and Coastal Zones
(2 reports).

Since leaving NOAA, I have been an IPCC expert reviewer and have maintained
climate and other subjects in the UN Atlas of the Oceans, where I am the Chief
Editor and Project Manager.

I am also President of Ocean
Associates, Inc., an oceans and fisheries consulting
business with 70 people in 6 states. I also have a website called ClimateChangeFacts.info where I try to keep track of and share all the latest information about climate
change.

I have focused on seven concerns about ocean acidification including that
marine life might lose the ability to make shells and existing shells will
become weaker, and that the loss of shell-forming plants and animals will reduce
food for those higher in the food chain.

These concerns are based on the work of respected scientists who believe increased
CO2 will dangerously increase acidification. They use IPCC scenarios developed
in the early 1990s. Other respected scientists believe that the scenarios have
been overtaken by events. For example, the cost of fuels is rising, and science
shows the Earth’s ability to absorb CO2 has not diminished.

Importantly, oceans are alkaline - not acidic. If all the CO2 in the air were
put into the ocean, the oceans would still be alkaline. We need to reassure
bathers, and scuba divers, that their feet will not dissolve when they step
in the water.

Mr. Chairman, a puddle of rainwater, or a handful of snow, is 100 times more
acidic than the ocean waters will ever be.

I have reviewed the IPCC and more recent scientific literature
and believe that there is not a problem with increased acidification, even
up to the unlikely levels in the most-used IPCC scenarios. This assessment
is due to 4 primary factors: First, laboratory work shows there is no basis
to predict the demise of shelled plants and animals living in the sea. The
animals above them in the food chain will still find food. There are two noteworthy
papers. In the first, Woods Hole Oceanographic researchers Justin Ries et al.
found that crabs, shrimp and lobsters build more shell when exposed to acidification
and that hard clams and corals slowed formation of shells at very high CO2
levels, while soft clams and oysters did so at lower levels. None of the shells
dissolved, but grew slower at unrealistically high CO2. Secondly, Iglesias-Rodriguez
et al. found that calcification and production in an important shelled planktonic
plant are significantly increased by high CO2. Thus, the science actually indicates
plants, crustaceans, and shelled algae plankton will be more successful. Since
they are at or near the bottom of the food chain, this is good news.

Second, the Earth has been this route before. Whether or not laboratory studies
provide the answers we think are reasonable, we need to look more broadly.
Russian academicians (on their National Academy of Sciences) taught me to look
at how the Earth responded in past eras when conditions were like those projected.
They gravely distrusted computer models.

So, what can we learn from the past and what we see around us? The oceans
have been far warmer and far colder and more acidic than is projected. During
the millennia, marine life endured and responded to CO2 many times higher than
present, and to temperatures that put tropical plants at the poles or covered
our land by thick ice. The memory of these events is built into the genes of
all species.

Virtually all ecological niches have been filled at all times. If someone
could demonstrate that there were no corals, clams, oysters, or shelled plankton
when there was double or triple the amount of CO2, I would be concerned. The
opposite is true.

Third, observational data show no harm. IPCC concluded (prior to the Iglesias-Rodriguez
paper) that there is no observational evidence of oceanic changes due to acidification.
There is also nothing conclusive in the recent research to indicate any reason
for concern.

Lastly, natural changes are greater and faster than those projected. Major
warming, cooling, and pH changes in the oceans are a fact of life. Whether
over a few years as in an El Niño, over decades as in the Pacific Oscillation,
or over a few hours as a burst of upwelling appears or a storm brings acidic
rainwater to an estuary. Despite severe and rapid changes that far exceed those
in the scenarios, the biology adapts rapidly. The 0.1 change in ocean alkalinity
since 1750 and the one degree F. rise since 1860 are but noise in this rapidly
changing system. In the face of all these natural changes, whether over days
or millennia, some species flourish while others diminish.

With no laboratory or observational evidence of biological disruption, I see
no economic disruption of commercial and recreational fisheries, nor harm to
marine mammals, sea turtles or any other protected species. Whichever response
the US takes, our actions should be prudent.

Our research should focus on understanding those ecosystem linkages needed
to wisely manage our fisheries, and conserve our protected species. This includes
research to explore further the possible acidification effects, as wisely envisioned
with the funds recently made available to NOAA.